What’s your problem?

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

There are some creationists that have been participating in this C&E debate for some time now. These creationists have had every qualm about the Theory of Evolution refuted thoroughly at this point. Now it seems they like to hang around just to evangelize and generally disagree for no good reason.

The purpose of this thread is to ask these resident creationists exactly what problems with the Theory of Evolution they still feel have not been answered. Is there any real reason you still don’t accept the Theory of Evolution on its own merits or do you just disagree now on perceived theological grounds.

 

[JohnR7]

Theory of Evolution on its own merits

I have a problem with the theory because it falls way to short and it simply does not get the job done. My second concern is the way it changes. When the theory is falsified, then they just make up something else and it is just a matter of time before it also is falsified.

 

[goat37]

I think you are always going to have a dissenting part of the population that will disagree for no other reason than they do not wish to change their outlook on life. Especially when they feel it can harm their religious beliefs and leave them without so much as hope in their lives.

It could be worse, the majority of the worlds population could actually believe in YEC, but I think overall most people accept evolution or at least the idea of a very old earth. There is too much empirical evidence of it. It's too hard to deny, and most people aren't strong willed enough and usually go with what's put right in front of their faces.

Anyone who seriously thinks that the jury is still out on evolution is a sadly misguided soul. And for one reason or another, are just unwilling to accept the fact that what they've been told by other misguided souls is wrong.
Does these people affect the reality of evolution? Nope. Does what these people often say make me laugh and pity them? Yep, sure does.

My only wish is that for once they would do something to prove their beliefs since they believe it is infallable. As a human, I cannot 'make evolution happen' as it takes a long period of time. But their God should certainly be able to prove otherwise shouldn't he?

I find it funny that God is so powerful and omnipotent, and can do absolutely anything....... except prove that he actually exists. (let alone prove he created us IMPERFECT creatures)

 

[Loudmouth]

I have a problem with the theory because it falls way to short and it simply does not get the job done.

Could you be a bit more specific?

My second concern is the way it changes. When the theory is falsified, then they just make up something else and it is just a matter of time before it also is falsified.

They don't just "make it up", they base it on the new evidence.

I still don't understand why creationists think that the changing nature of science is a bad thing. Do they think it is better to stick with one explanation and always be wrong? Should we have stuck with a geocentric solar system to make creationists trust science more? It would seem that science is more open minded and unbiased than creationists want to admit.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I have a problem with the theory because it falls way to short and it simply does not get the job done.

See, this is exactly what I mean by just disagreeing for no good reason. How does it “fall way too short”? What does it fall short of? Exactly what job is not getting done? What is your problem exactly?

My second concern is the way it changes. When the theory is falsified, then they just make up something else and it is just a matter of time before it also is falsified.

When a theory is outright falsified then it is discarded for a better theory. The strength of the scientific method is in how it can constantly take new evidence into account and refine its theories in order to get as close to the truth as possible. If a scientific theory never changed no matter what new evidence came to light it wouldn’t be very accurate would it?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Somewhat dishonest, John. You make it sound like every few years the current ToE gets junked and a new one replaces it, whereas the reality is that in its essence it's barely changed since Darwin's day. A lot of detail has been changed, far more has been filled in, but in essence.

You ever zoomed in on a town in Google Earth, John? At first, it's very blurred, but as more information is streamed in, it becomes clearer, and sometimes things you thought you were seeing turn out to be optical illusions as the image becomes clearer. Science is like that, John. Do you consider the distant images on Google Earth to be wrong, and do you consider that everything it shows you is untrustworthy because it changes as you zoom in?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I have a problem with the theory because it falls way to short and it simply does not get the job done. My second concern is the way it changes. When the theory is falsified, then they just make up something else and it is just a matter of time before it also is falsified.

actually what really happens seems to depend on the size of the theory, how important it is, how much stuff it covers.

einstein didn't throw out newton, he made it a special case.

with the change in thinking about ulcers as infections all the previous thinking was pretty much thrown out.

prions changed some very basic, and important theory but making them responsible for mad cow didn't change a lot of things in the field....on the ground they look like an infective particle like viruses so you have to do much the same public health measures in either case.

so it really depends. however it is a rhetorical falsity to imply that every change in theory is total or throws out everything for the new. that simply is wrong and a bad description of what seems to really happen.

 

[Silvertongue]

I've never understood the "evolution/science changes therefore it's bad" line of reasoning either. On another forum I wrote this:

"...science, however, thrives on change...that's its modus operandi. Research on even the most basic principles is continually carried out, and no theory or even law is ever above testing and possible falsification. And yet many times it's this continual shifting of beliefs and theories that often bring it under attack by theists, as we saw just now when new ideas concerning evolution were characterized as 'wild theories.' That's how science works...when one theory (or part of a theory, in this case) is shown to be inaccurate, the evidence is reexamined and a new hypothesis is constructed and tested. That's how things have been done for hundreds of years and the very fact that we're now communicating like this is thanks to that self-same scientific method. To hold science and/or evolution at fault because it 'keeps changing its story' is akin to holding a body-builder at fault when his body begins to change due to lifting weights. Also, most evolutionists, including myself, don't cling to the belief with all our might and yell 'this is the only way it could have happened!' We're fully aware of the holes in our own theories and the possible validity of other theories, and we're fully aware that we could be wrong. And we certainly don't tell people that it's either 'believe or burn' when we bring up evolution. To sum all this up I'd say the fundamental difference between science and religion is that science has questions that may never be answered and religion has answers that may never be questioned."

 

[Hydra009]

There are some creationists that have been participating in this C&E debate for some time now. These creationists have had every qualm about the Theory of Evolution refuted thoroughly at this point. Now it seems they like to hang around just to evangelize and generally disagree for no good reason.

IMO, you're not going to get an answer to this, because the real reasons aren't scientific at all and revealing them hurts the facade of a scientific case for creationism. At this point, all the PRATTs are over and creationists are now more or less limited to smear tactics and unsupported assertions, like has already been demonstrated.

As far as I can tell, the charade ultimately boils down to two reasons:
1) the belief that evolution somehow hurts Christianity/religion/theism - that not taking Genesis literally is tantamount to not believing the Bible (the "atheist gambit" as U.S. Incognito has coined it)
2) the unflattering realization that humans are related to "inferior/lower species"

 

[rmwilliamsll]

To sum all this up I'd say the fundamental difference between science and religion is that science has questions that may never be answered and religion has answers that may never be questioned.

you're going to wish you copyrighted this when it shows up as often as:
it's not how the heavens go but how to go to heaven !!!! *grin*

 

[corvus_corax]

My second concern is the way it changes. When the theory is falsified, then they just make up something else and it is just a matter of time before it also is falsified.

(emphasis mine)
The Theory of Evolution has been falsified?

Although I could be incorrect, Im pretty sure you're wrong.

Sources would be nice

 

[JohnR7]

See, this is exactly what I mean by just disagreeing for no good reason.

It would appear that what I consider to be a good reason and what you consider to be a good reason are two different things. Actually, at this point something almost has to be a matter of life or death to even get my attention. If people perish in their sin it will be with no thanks to science that tries to convince them that everything is ok and there is nothing to worry about.

 

[TheBear]

I have a problem with the theory because it falls way to short

Falls short of what??? Compared to what???

and it simply does not get the job done.

What "job"? And what does the "job" better?

What are you smoking?

My second concern is the way it changes. When the theory is falsified, then they just make up something else and it is just a matter of time before it also is falsified.

Again, what the hell are you smoking???

 

[JohnR7]

(emphasis mine)
The Theory of Evolution has been falsified?

Yes, of course. It is just that what a creationist and a evolutionist consider falsified is two different things. For example, look at horse evolution. The idea that the horse evolved from small to big in a straight line has been falsifed and it has been replaced by a hodge podge theory. They use to think evolution was a tree, but now they think it is a bush. This sort of stuff is far to common.

I can not imagine them doing that with the Bible. From the beginning the tree of life has always been a tree, not a bush. From the beginning people choose life or death, sickness or health, blessing or a curse. Nothing has come along in all this time to change any of that.

I use to talk about the theory of evoluion being the soup of the day or the flavor of the week. It changes more often then the weather and in some cases it changes more often then some people change their underware. Maybe people like change, but the Bible has remained consistant and true from the beginning.

 

[JohnR7]

What are you smoking?


Again, what the hell are you smoking???

I quit smoking, where have you been? Don't you keep up with anything? Are you coming out of hibernation? I see your as grumpy as ever.

 

[goat37]

Yes, of course. It is just that what a creationist and a evolutionist consider falsified is two different things. For example, look at horse evolution. The idea that the horse evolved from small to big in a straight line has been falsifed and it has been replaced by a hodge podge theory. They use to think evolution was a tree, but now they think it is a bush. This sort of stuff is far to common.

I can not imagine them doing that with the Bible. From the beginning the tree of life has always been a tree, not a bush. From the beginning people choose life or death, sickness or health, blessing or a curse. Nothing has come along in all this time to change any of that.

I use to talk about the theory of evoluion being the soup of the day or the flavor of the week. It changes more often then the weather and in some cases it changes more often then some people change their underware. Maybe people like change, but the Bible has remained consistant and true from the beginning.

The only thing remotely close to coherant and true in your statement is that it is quite obvious that evolutionists and creationists have different views on falsified.

i.e. Young Earth Creationism = Falsified.

 

[JohnR7]

Anyone who seriously thinks that the jury is still out on evolution is a sadly misguided soul. And for one reason or another, are just unwilling to accept the fact that what they've been told by other misguided souls is wrong.

I think this applys more to evolutionists than creationists. It is more often that evos are "misguided souls". Creationists may not get it all right, but at least they have some of it right.

 

[JohnR7]

i.e. Young Earth Creationism = Falsified.

What a joke, evolution can not be falsifed but YEC is falsified? Once again you got it backwards. The only way you can falsify a "young" earth is to try and claim the last 6000 years never happened and that we are still back in the stone age.

YEC's may not have it all right, but evos are in no position to be critical of someone for not getting everything exactly right.

 

[TheBear]

I see your as grumpy as ever.

And, I see that you're as nonsensical and evasive as ever.

But, let's put all the personal niceties aside for the moment, and get back to the serious questions.


You claimed that the theory of evolution "falls short". Falls short of what?

You claimed that the theory of evolution "does not get the job done". What "job" are you talking about? And what, if anything, does get the "job" done?

I'll get to the rest of your remarks after you answered these points right here.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What a joke, evolution can not be falsifed but YEC is falsified?

evolution can be falsified.
actually rather easily.
show a chimera that breaks the nested hierarchical structure.
show a later fossil in a younger layer where it should not be.
etc.

YEC is falsified by:
tree core data
ice core data
lake varves
C14
coral layers.

for a short list.